Arctic scientist under investigation

[luckytxn 2,264]

And again as usual they were scamming us. Look at the amount that this thief had to dole out. Science is being bought and paid for and with our tax dollars. This happens every time with anything coming out about this fake science.

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

The complaint seeks Monnett's reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency andinspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett's computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an "ongoing internal investigation." Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.

Documents provided by Ruch's group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore's mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth," came up during investigators' questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said "anything really" about global warming.

"It's something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic," he said.

Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

The complaint alleges Gleason and Monnett were harassed by agency officials and received negative comments from them after the article was published. Gleason eventually took another Interior Department job; he didn't respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn't be available for comment.

Ruch also claimed the investigation is being done by criminal investigators with no scientific background, even though the case is an administrative matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.htmlLink:

[TBoneTX 45,543]

The fraud has been laid bare, and it's hard to bear.

[Zero Sum 305]

This, of course, bears down on all scientists. Long live the attack on science.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The fraud has been laid bare, and it's hard to bear.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director."

First of all, he's a biologist, not a climate scientist. He made observations of Polar Bears drowning in the Artic, and reported it. It will be interesting to see just exactly what the charge is against him and whether he'll be exonerated or not.

BTW, can you substantiate your claim that there are any scientists who have been found guilty of making Climate Change up? If so, please do.

Edited July 28, 2011 by DFH

[Zero Sum 305]

"The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director."

First of all, he's a biologist, not a climate scientist. He made observations of Polar Bears drowning in the Artic, and reported it. It will be interesting to see just exactly what the charge is against him and whether he'll be exonerated or not.

BTW, can you substantiate your claim that there are any scientists who have been found guilty of making Climate Change up? If so, please do.

There goes the anti-science brigade losing touch with reality yet again!

[Ban Hammer 13,407]

He made observations of Polar Bears drowning in the Artic, and reported it.

i imagine that's probably not uncommon when storms come through.

[luckytxn 2,264]

"The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director."

First of all, he's a biologist, not a climate scientist. He made observations of Polar Bears drowning in the Artic, and reported it. It will be interesting to see just exactly what the charge is against him and whether he'll be exonerated or not.

BTW, can you substantiate your claim that there are any scientists who have been found guilty of making Climate Change up? If so, please do.

Will do. I will be taking a break shortly and start posting a lot where global warning data was falsified.

[Zero Sum 305]

Hopefully that means verified false data, not silly claims of tricks when the tricks are clearly shown to be valid scientific and statistical methods.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Hopefully that means verified false data, not silly claims of tricks when the tricks are clearly shown to be valid scientific and statistical methods.

I am not a scientist of a pseudo science that has to fake and ignore data for my livelihood.

No matter what I post will be ignored by any that sucks at the teats of a science that is nothing but predictions. The science of climatology is equated with palmistry, fortune telling and reading bumps on the head.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Brown bears are not in danger. Polar bears are a demonstration of adaptive behavior, not becoming a new species (A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.) Speaking of bad science that proves the point:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/polar-bears-rooted-in-ireland.html

[luckytxn 2,264]

I will post another post about the UN IPCC.

Paul Joseph Watson<br style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; ">Prison Planet.com<br style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; ">Monday, November 17, 2008

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“This was startling,”

reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that

Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC and a close ally of Hansen, also raised eyebrows recently during a presentation in Australia, during which he claimed that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever as he cited a graph showing purported temperature increases over the last decade. In fact, as even the vast majority of man-made global warming advocates will concede,

temperatures since 1998 have moved sideways and over the last 18 months they have clearly begun a downward trend.

Whether such “mistakes” are made in genuine error or are part of a politicized push for man-made global warming to be universally accepted, and the evidence clearly suggests that latter is the case, the fact is that we can no longer tolerate the cry that “the debate is over” on man-made global warming in light of such gargantuan falsehoods.

Likewise, the push for carbon emissions to be reduced by 80 per cent or more, a figure that would completely cripple western economies and lower living standards to a near third world level, can no longer be accepted as a reasonable course of action now that the primary authority on man-made global warming, the UN IPCC, has been proven to be using fraudulent data to make its case.

Foisted upon the public by means of giant multi-million dollar PR campaigns and brainwashing mandates that have worked themselves into every sector of society, including education, movies, television the arts and culture, all the attention and funding is being lavished upon a manufactured hoax, peddled with the aid of phony data, as governments prepare to suck what’s left out of the middle class and poor with carbon taxes that do nothing to help the environment, while all the real environmental problems are left in the shadows.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There goes the anti-science brigade losing touch with reality yet again!

The reality is that the gravy train has been derailed. The damage done by this is not the damage to "science" or scientists, but to the public opinion that drives the votes that drives the funds that pays for the $50 million this guy got.

I say "reinstate him to his job and cut off all his funds" How is that?

Turn off the money and MM-GW ceases to exist. What ever happened to AlGore?

[luckytxn 2,264]

This was amusing.

Global warming claims 'based on false data'

By Robert Matthews

12:00AM GMT 14 Jan 2001

FRESH doubt has been cast on evidence for global warming following the discovery that a key method of measuring temperature change has exaggerated the warming rate by almost 40 per cent.

Studies of temperature records dating back more than a century have seemed to indicate a rise in global temperature of around 0.5°C, with much of it occurring since the late 1970s. This has led many scientists to believe that global warming is under way, with the finger of blame usually pointed at man-made pollution such as carbon dioxide.

Now an international team of scientists, including researchers from the Met Office in Bracknell, Berkshire, has found serious discrepancies in these temperature measurements, suggesting that the amount of global warming is much less than previously believed.

The concern focuses on the temperature of the atmosphere over the sea, which covers almost three quarters of the Earth's surface. While scientists use standard weather station instruments to detect warming on land, they have been forced to rely on the crews of ships to make measurements over the vast ocean regions.

Crews have taken the temperature by dipping buckets into the sea or using water flowing into the engine intakes. Scientists have assumed that there is a simple link between the temperature of seawater and that of the air above it.

RELATED LINKS

• I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right22 Jul 2011
• David Cameron's senior adviser Steve Hilton suggests UK should abolish maternity leave27 Jul 2011
• Norway shooting: Glenn Beck compares dead teenagers to Hitler youth25 Jul 2011

FROM THE WEB

• Question Cabin Wednesdays: What are the Different Families of Languages?(Rosetta Stone Blog)
• The Ice That Burns: Are Methane Hydrates the Next Big Resource?(Txchnologist)
• Buried in the Sand: The Deception of America(SnagFilms)

[what's this]

However, after analysing years of data from scientific buoys in the Pacific that measure sea and air temperatures simultaneously, the team has found no evidence of a simple link. Instead, the seawater measurements have exaggerated the amount of global warming over the seas, with the real temperature having risen less than half as fast during the 1970s than the standard measurements suggest.

Reporting their findings in the influential journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists say that the exact cause of the discrepancy is not known. One possibility is that the atmosphere responded faster than the sea to cooling events such as volcanic eruptions.

The findings have major implications for the climate change debate because the sea temperature measurements are a key part of global warming calculations. According to the team, replacing the standard seawater data with the appropriate air data produces a big cut in the overall global warming rate during the last 20 years, from around 0.18°C per decade to 0.13°C.

This suggests that the widely-quoted global warming figure used to persuade governments to take action over greenhouse gases exaggerates the true warming rate by almost 40 per cent. The team is now calling for climate experts to switch from seawater data to sea-air temperature measurements.

One member of the team, David Parker, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Met Office, said that the discovery of the discrepancy "shows we don't understand everything, and that we need better observations - all branches of science are like that". Yet according to Mr Parker, the new results do not undermine the case for global warming: "It is raising questions about the interpretation of the sea-surface data."

Even so, the findings will be seized on by sceptics as more evidence that scientists have little idea about the current rate of global warming, let alone its future rate. Climate experts are still trying to explain why satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth have detected little sign of global warming - despite taking measurements during supposedly the warmest period on record.

Some researchers suspect that the fault may again lie with the ground-based temperature measurements. They say that many of the data come from stations surrounded by growing urban sprawl, whose warmth could give a misleading figure. A study of data taken around Vienna, Austria, between 1951 and 1996 found that the air temperature rose by anything from zero to 0.6°C, depending on precisely where the measurements were made.

The reality is that the gravy train has been derailed. The damage done by this is not the damage to "science" or scientists, but to the public opinion that drives the votes that drives the funds that pays for the $50 million this guy got.

I say "reinstate him to his job and cut off all his funds" How is that?

Turn off the money and MM-GW ceases to exist. What ever happened to AlGore?

Damm you. I was going to post a couple of things that I found about Al Gore and how he makes a living and the amounts and how his film was debunked thoroughly.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Lets see Hansen at work again.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2009

NASA Rigs Data, Reports False Global Warming

James Hansen is the NASA climatologist who started the global warming hysteria in 1988 when he told a Senate committee he was 99 percent sure global warming was already underway. The news media seized upon his unsupported testimony and parlayed it into an impending planetary crisis. A new industry was born. Billions of dollars were spent, and tens of thousands of jobs were created, giving rise to growing numbers of people with vested interests in promoting the specter of global warming. James Hansen gave them ammunition. For years, as head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), he has “repeatedly been caught providing erroneous temperature reports that always err on the side of claiming more warming than has occurred,” says James Taylor in the February 2009 issue of Environment & Climate News.

In 2007 it was revealed that GISS had been artificially inflating U.S. temperatures by 0.15 degrees Celsius since the year 2000. NASA had claimed that six of the ten hottest years in U.S. history had occurred since 1995. When the erroneous data was corrected, 1998 (an unusually warm year due to El Nino—not carbon dioxide) was no longer the warmest year of the past century in the U.S. It fell to second place, with 1934 now being the warmest. And third place now belonged to 1921, not 2006. The formerly high-ranking years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 fell well down the leader board—behind even 1900! Four of the top ten are now from the 1930s : 1934, 1931, 1938, 1939. Since more than 80 percent of the century's increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide occurred after 1940, the warmer temperatures of earlier years can't be explained by higher carbon dioxide levels.

In April 2008 Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre (<a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/"'>http://www.climateaudit.org/" style="color: rgb(187, 51, 0); ">http://www.climateaudit.org/) documented that NASA has been “rewriting history time and time again.” Still, NASA continued the process. It falsely reported that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Statistical scientists jumped on this claim, leading even NASA to admit it was wrong. The month was actually quite normal.

Now meteorologist Anthony Watts has caught GISS and Hansen doctoring data records from Santa Rosa, California, and potentially other temperature stations. The charts below show how Hansen and his underlings turned a long-term decline into a long-term temperature increase.

The top chart shows actual readings reported by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). GISS arrives at its numbers by taking the USHCN data and applying secret adjustments. USHCN reports a temperature decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reports an increase of one-half a degree. Hansen has refused to explain how and why he makes these adjustments.

Hansen's secrecy raises an ethical and perhaps legal question of whether the head of an agency federally funded by U.S. taxpayers can refuse to disclose how those funds are spent. It is reminiscent of a case a few years ago involving Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” graph purportedly illustrating global warming in recent decades. It showed centuries of temperature records as a basically horizontal line (the handle of the hockey stick), to which was added a sharply rising line (resembling the blade of the hockey stick) to denote global warming in recent decades. For a long time Mann refused to disclose his methodology. Finally, faced with pressure from a Congressional committee, he relented and revealed it. His study was shown to be based on an invalid statistical procedure. One must wonder if that was the reason he refused to disclose it sooner—and if Hansen has maintained his secrecy for the same reason. Robert Ferguson, president of the Science and Public Policy Institute, has stated: “Hansen's track record for presenting false data is undeniable, and yet neither the press nor the government holds him accountable for his self-serving errors and lack of objectivity.”